Sunday, November 06, 2016

Nikolai Tolstoy: Consider a Monarchy, America

Southmoor,
England — As a foreigner with dual British and Russian citizenship, it
is not for me to comment at length on the merits of the rival candidates
for the presidency of the United States. But it seems uncontroversial
to say that neither appears to be a Washington or a Lincoln, and that
the elective presidency is coming under increasingly critical
examination.

That
their head of state should be elected by the people is, I imagine, the
innate view of almost all American citizens. But at this unquiet hour,
they might well wonder whether — for all the wisdom of the founding
fathers — their republican system of government is actually leading them
toward that promised “more perfect union.”

After
all, our American cousins have only to direct their gaze toward their
northern neighbor to find, in contented Canada, a nation that has for
its head of state a hereditary monarch. That example alone demonstrates
that democracy is perfectly compatible with constitutional monarchy.

Indeed,
the modern history of Europe has shown that those countries fortunate
enough to enjoy a king or queen as head of state tend to be more stable
and better governed than most of the Continent’s republican states. By
the same token, demagogic dictators have proved unremittingly hostile to
monarchy because the institution represents a dangerously venerated
alternative to their ambitions.

Reflecting
in 1945 on what had led to the rise of Nazi Germany, Winston Churchill
wrote: “This war would never have come unless, under American and
modernizing pressure, we had driven the Hapsburgs out of Austria and
Hungary and the Hohenzollerns out of Germany.”

“By
making these vacuums,” he went on, “we gave the opening for the
Hitlerite monster to crawl out of its sewer on to the vacant thrones.”

Yes, I'm a monarchist. But I am not naive. A monarchy in the United States is a non-starter. Monarchies don't work well in countries that are not homogeneous. We lack any kind of history or shared national culture that would make a monarchy a viable option. And then there is the question of who would we put on our throne?

6 comments:

The Austrian Empire certainly worked better than the subsequent governments at holding a bunch of diverse peoples together.

Lee Kuan Yew, while not a monarch per se, did pretty well keeping the diverse peoples of Singapore together.

The real trouble in America is getting people to give up the vote. Even many disgusted with the political process seem bent on voting to counteract whatever it is they perceive to be the evilness of the other side.

I think I heard Trump wants to remove estate taxes or something like that. That would be in his self-interest, but it is also how a natural aristocracy could rise- hopefully certain families could become more powerful at the expense of the bureaucracy- a sort of reverse of what's happened historically since the 1600s when that ridiculous fad of absolutism brought about the rise of bureaucrats over and above the nobility.

I hear Chelsea is too useless to make a suitable heir to her parents political machinations, so maybe a hereditary monarchy is the next best thing. Gotta keep that cash flowing somehow.

The House of Clinton - not the monarchy America wants, but maybe the monarchy America deserves?

On a more serious note, I do sometimes think that a hereditary monarchy might be something that would actually provide some much-needed cultural cohesion to the American social contract. So I don't think it's a "non-starter", but I could only settle for an officially Catholic monarchy myself, so that's what I see as the major roadblock... sigh.

I've also wondered whether the individual states couldn't establish monarchs within their own territories. I suspect that, of all states, Hawaii would actually embrace a "crowned Republic" with an ethnic Hawaiian, hereditary head of state and an elected legislature with an elected head of government.

Two important features would be needed in an American monarchy. One, they are wealthy enough to contribute positively to the state instead of be a leech on the state. Second, most importantly, they need to be the prime example of American culture. Since we are multicultural, as you pointed out this is a problem. However, so was Rome. Orthodoxy was the glue for the Empire. If we could get the Trump family to become Orthodox, they are our best option. They are already based on the poisons of globalism and multiculturalism, which is a big step in the right direction.

After re-reading John's original thoughts on the posted article, Anti-Gnostic's posts on Empire and also Kings and Queens. I realize there is not path to re-establishing this natural political reality in our nation founded on liberal principles and pluralistic beliefs. However, I remain hopeful. If the Orthodox Faith can spread through the land (which seems to be beginning to happen) then when enough people come to their senses (like all major political changes it never takes a majority, just enough people to make it happen) our nation will take a very critical look not only at the constitution but also upon that which the nation can really be founded. We need to become saints and if this is too much, ask the Church for saints in the East to help us.

Copyright & Permissions

Unless otherwise noted all written material on this blog is copyrighted by the blog owner. All rights are reserved except as stated below.

I generally have no problem with someone quoting Ad Orientem unless it's for commercial purposes or something that's copyrighted other than by me (in either which case kindly ask first). In all cases please be polite and include attribution and a link. Remember good netiquette.

A conscientious effort is made to respect the rights of others when quoting or displaying their work on this blog. As a general rule only excerpts are posted with a link to the original source. Common sense exceptions may include instances where it is believed in good faith that the content falls within the public domain or where the quoted content is so brief that excerpting is not practical.